Mayor takes over PTC Police Dept.

Tue, 06/06/2006 - 4:26pm
By: John Munford
Bernard McMullen

In light of this weekend’s DUI arrest of Peachtree City Manager Bernie McMullen, Mayor Harold Logsdon has taken over one of McMullen’s tasks: overseeing the police department. It’s a first for Peachtree City.

Click here to read the police incident report of McMullen's arrest.

Logsdon said Monday night that he has spoken with each council member individually to get their approval for him to assume the duty, although no public record of that polling exists.

But council has not voted in public to name Logsdon as supervisor of the police department, despite the fact that McMullen’s arrest was the subject of a special called meeting Sunday night.

Monday night, Logsdon said the main concern of council at the Sunday night meeting was not to take a vote on the matter.

“We decided, let’s not vote on anything tonight — let’s see what happens in the morning,” Logsdon said.

McMullen will remain as city manager, and Logsdon indicated that he and the entire council support him and lauded McMullen’s performance as city manager.

City Attorney Ted Meeker said several sections in the charter and in the code of ordinances allow the mayor to assume part of the city manager’s duties, and it could certainly happen if the City Council voted to do so.

Current plans are for a formal council vote at the next regular meeting slated for June 15.

McMullen was arrested Saturday night after officers stopped him on his golf cart at the amphitheater parking lot following a performance of the Motown-Sound group, the Temptations. According to the police report, McMullen was charged with DUI, possession of an open container of alcohol and possession of alcohol in a park, the last a city ordinance violation.

McMullen refused to take the breath test police sought, although he registered a .104 on a preliminary breath test, the report said. Under Georgia law, anyone who registers .08 or more blood alcohol content on a breath or blood test is considered “under the influence.” The initial reading was likely taken with a portable breath alcohol sensor, but a desktop machine is used to record official results to be presented in court.

The police report also indicated that McMullen had a “glass of wine” in his possession at the time of the incident. Amphitheater patrons are allowed to bring their own beer or wine to concerts. The amphitheater also sells alcohol at adult-oriented events such as the summer concert series.

McMullen, 57, of Panstone Drive, Peachtree City, was taken to the Fayette County Jail where he was released on a $1,669 cash bond Sunday, officials said.

Part of the problem with this situation is the city is dealing with an “unprecedented situation,” Meeker said.

Meeker said the council didn’t vote in closed session Sunday to authorize the mayor to oversee the police department in McMullen’s place. That would have been illegal, Meeker said, noting that as legal counsel he too could be held responsible if the city were to violate the open meetings law.

“There was discussion, but no action was taken,” Meeker said, adding that council didn’t really get into a possible reprimand or any other action against McMullen.

Council could have chosen to vote at the meeting after it re-adjourned into open session moments before the meeting ended.

No council action has been taken against McMullen, but Mayor Logsdon has assumed administrative control of the police department.

“The council members and I are aware of this unfortunate incident and have discussed it,” Logsdon said in a prepared statement Monday. “Bernie has always performed his duties as city manager in an exemplary manner. He has our full support and will continue managing the day-to-day operations of the city, with one exception. Pending council approval, I will assume direct supervision of the Police Department as we continue through the budget process and until the case has been adjudicated.”

On Tuesday, Meeker cited language in the city charter and ordinances that he said would authorize Logsdon’s assuming direct control of the police department.

Meeker said the possibility of Logsdon assuming administrative control of the police department is considered in several places in the city’s charter and ordinances.

Such an action has never been taken by a mayor of Peachtree City.

Although there is no public vote giving that power to Logsdon, Meeker said he anticipated that happening at the June 15 council meeting.

The gist of the meeting was to determine where the city proceeds from an operational basis, especially given the potential conflict of allowing McMullen to remain supervisory control over the police department, Meeker said. Meeker said the discussion also centered on what information the city could release about the incident.

The city provided the full five-page incident report immediately upon The Citizen’s request Monday afternoon.

Council did not take any evidence in closed session — which would have been illegal — and each council member was already aware of McMullen’s arrest before the meeting began, Meeker said.

Georgia’s open meetings law prohibits a government body from taking or hearing evidence related to disciplinary action against a public official during a closed meeting. Any such charges or evidence must be heard during a public session of the council.

The city is “trying to avoid even the appearance of a conflict,” Meeker noted; McMullen’s criminal case will be handled by Fayette County State Court instead of the city’s municipal court where most DUI cases are handled. Typically, DUI suspects can opt to have their case heard in state court instead.

Meeker acknowledged that McMullen might not be disciplined by council until after his court case concludes.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Tue, 06/06/2006 - 10:47pm.

This is totally inappropriate, if not outright illegal.

There was no legal meeting, no legal vote and thus no legal authorization for Lodsdon to do this.

His speaking to Council members individual constitutes asking for opinions, nothing more.

Any actions he takes are invalid.

Legally speaking, The City Manager is still fully in charge of his duties until suspended or otherwise.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 12:16pm.

Actually, Article II of the PTC Code, as Ted Meeker is quoted as indicating, certainly does empower the mayor to take these actions. Nothing illegal, unethical or invalid about it. Feel free to familiarize yourself with PTC Code: http://www.peachtree-city.org/codes/

Guess Bernie will think twice about running afoul of Chief Murray in the future. And that's a sad state of affairs.


Cal Beverly's picture
Submitted by Cal Beverly on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 4:12pm.

I've got Sec. 2.3 in front of me: Duties and authority of mayor."

I don't see what you say is so clearly there. But maybe you do see the specific authorization for the mayor to take over a city department. Would you spell out where you see that power, please? Cite chapter and verse, please, since this is a matter of plain English.

(13) is the only one that seems to even "suggest" that power, except that there's a big "however" in the conclusion of that section:

"...however, the responsibility for the daily operation and administration of the city shall be delegated to the city manager who shall report on such activities to the mayor AND COUNCILMEMBERS [emphasis added by me] as hereinafter provided."

That's it for the charter.

In the ordinances, there's the following:

Sec. 2-87. Appointment; term; salary as fixed; function.
The mayor and council may appoint a chief administrative officer who shall serve subject to the pleasure of the mayor and council. The title of such officer shall be chief administrative officer of the city. His salary shall be determined by the mayor and council. Such officer shall be the administrative head of the city government and shall perform such executive duties as may be delegated by the mayor.
(Code 1980, § 2-21)

and

Sec. 2-89. Removal from office.
The council may remove the chief administrative officer by a majority vote. At least 30 days before such removal shall become effective, the mayor shall set forth the reasons for his removal. The chief administrative officer may, within ten days, reply in writing and may request a public hearing, which shall be held not earlier than 20 days, nor later than 30 days, after the filing of such request. After such public hearing, if one is requested, and after full consideration, the council by majority vote mayadopt a final resolution of removal. By the preliminary resolution, the council may suspend such officer from duty.
(Code 1980, § 2-23)

Sec. 2-90. Designation of acting officer; filling vacancy.
(a) The council may designate a person to perform the functions and duties of the chief administrative officer during his absence, disability or suspension.
(b) Vacancies in such office shall be filled by the council as early as practicable; and until such vacancy is filled, the council shall have full powers to make a temporary appointment or to perform the functions and duties of chief administrative officer.
(Code 1980, § 2-24)

That's the city code.

The code states that the COUNCIL may remove the city manager and the COUNCIL may designate a person to temporarily fill the slot.

But the COUNCIL has taken NO official action.

Neither the charter nor the code contemplates a city manager with only partial authority over all city departments. Nor does either empower an UNOFFICIAL suspension or removal from duty of that officer and the subsequent empowering of the mayor to act as the de facto department head.

So what's your point? That the mayor has some sort of loosey-goosey executive authority that allows him to step in when he decides he's needed -- without a public vote of council to confirm it?

Neither the charter nor the code seem to back up your opinion.

And, I don't think that's what's meant by a "weak-mayor form of government."

Again, cite the empowering law, not your opinion.

your obedient servant ....


Submitted by iluvthebubble on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 7:28pm.

It's right there in the sections of the code you quoted. Section 2-87 says the city manager "shall perform such executive duties as may be delegated by the mayor." No "AND COUNCIL" there. The mayor has simply altered the duties he has delegated to the city manager, as he is completely within his legal authority to do. Bernie has not been removed or suspended from office, so sections 2-89 and 2-90 don't apply.

Now whether Harold alone has the power to actually run the police department is another question. He may have to get the council to vote on that one. As far as I can tell he hasn't tried to tell Chief Murray what to do; hopefully he won't try until the council has voted to approve this move. But as far as telling Bernie that he no longer runs the police department, that's completely legit.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 8:39pm.

Apparently neither of you have held any office with this kind of wording. I have.

What 2-87 means is that the Mayor and City Council hire, determine salary and baseline duties.

But, the Mayor may, but does not have to, delegate some of HIS executive duties for the Manager to perform in addition to those assigned by the full Council.

So, if this was not an original power delegated by the Mayor to the Manager, the proper course of action is to have a full legal meeting and appoint someone other than the Mayor to temporarily fill in.

The Mayor can only, unilaterally, take back the duties he assigned the Manager to perform. All baseline duties assigned by the full Council can only be affected by the Council in a formal and legal meeting.

Logsdon is acting in violation of law.

So, if a baseline duty is oversight of the Police, Bernie remains in full authority until a legal Council vote.

Further, the proper action is to appoint someone other than the Mayor to temporarily fulfill that function. Meaning by the Council.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Thu, 06/08/2006 - 8:14am.

The version I'm looking at doesn't indicate any of the points your version does. Can you post a link to the version you have? Mine only says something about "shall perform such executive duties as may be delegated by the mayor."

Obviously you, like Cal, are making your own interpretation of the code. I'm merely quoting directly from the text of the code itself. It's been a long time since I took municipal law so I'll defer to Ted Meeker's interpretation and any subsequent trier of fact.

Incidentally, is there any issue that you actually don't comment on?


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 06/08/2006 - 8:43am.

The version I'm looking at doesn't indicate any of the points your version does. Can you post a link to the version you have? Mine only says something about "shall perform such executive duties as may be delegated by the mayor."

You cannot read a portion of such a legal document to the exclusion of the other statements. You must read them to be in harmony with all portions. That is law.

You find the same type working in HOA, Association, all levels of government and so on type documents.

It clearly states the Mayor AND Council establish the position, with its athority. Not the Mayor alone.

Then it says the Mayor may delegate EXECUTIVE authority. Meaning the exclusive authority held by the Mayor, not the full Council authority.

Add here that certain executive authorities cannot be delegated if so established by documentation.

The Mayor has certain inherent powers of his office. Those include insuring the enforcement of Council passed issues.

Those Council passed issues he oversees and enforces cannot be altered, negated or changed by anyone except the Council in a legally held meeting.

You obviously have never been much involved with any such legal body at any depth. If you had you would know this already.

Even the PTC attorney pointed out the Mayor could do the overseeing if authorized by the Council, legally. No where did he say the Mayor could do it unilaterally.

Obviously you, like Cal, are making your own interpretation of the code. I'm merely quoting directly from the text of the code itself. It's been a long time since I took municipal law so I'll defer to Ted Meeker's interpretation and any subsequent trier of fact.

You are reading a selected portion of the code to the exclusion of the full code and putting you interpretation on that segment alone. You cannot do that.

And Meeker already has agreed with what I said. A Council vote is required.

Incidentally, is there any issue that you actually don't comment on?

Hmmmm. A clear demonstration that you do not read in full and then launch out with ad hominen statements.

Try to find my comments on the Theater, Dunn and Wells and many other issues. Happy hunting!

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by iluvthebubble on Thu, 06/08/2006 - 9:13am.

It hurts to agree with ptc guy, but this time I can't avoid it.

Section 2-3 says the mayor is the chief EXECUTIVE officer of the city. Section 2-87 allows the council and mayor to appoint a chief ADMINISTRATIVE officer of the city. So clearly, the executive and administrative roles are different.

Section 2-92 sets forth the city manager’s powers and duties: “In addition to those elsewhere provided in this Code, the following powers and duties are conferred upon the chief administrative officer: . . . (3) Administrative authority. To exercise administrative control over all regular departments and divisions of the city. . . .”

This seems to be the source of the manager’s authority over the police department.

In contrast, Sec. 2-3 defining the mayor’s powers and duties includes this: “ . . . the said mayor shall exercise general supervision and jurisdiction over the affairs for the said city; however the responsibility for the daily operation and administration of the city shall be delegated to the city manager . . . . “

Reading all the relevant sections together, I think section 2-87 allows the mayor to delegate (and withdraw) only his own executive authority without council approval. But he can’t unilaterally withdraw the city manager’s administrative authority over the police department; that would require a change to the code or at a minimum a vote of the council.

Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 06/08/2006 - 8:37am.

What part of Cal Beverly's job and business are you confused with? You got nuts in you head or what?

OK....let's try an experiment here. Cal.....you, John, Ben and the gang take off for the summer. Don't editorialize or report on anything for let's say 8 weeks and let's see if the squirrel rodent character might learn something here.


secret squirrel's picture
Submitted by secret squirrel on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 7:17pm.

I read section 2.87 as permitting such a move; you do not. Specifically, "Such officer shall be the administrative head of the city government and shall perform such executive duties as may be delegated by the mayor." My point is merely that this passage can easily be construed as such, subject to the interpretation or whims of whoever has been empowered to make such determination, ultimate or otherwise. As clear as any code, law, regulation etc. maybe, it is still subject to interpretation. You call this "opinion," while providing your own. Note that I am not commenting on any suspension or removal from office- merely the temporary assumption of the city manager's oversight of the PTCPD by the mayor, as accorded him by 2-87: "duties delegated by the mayor." Am I wrong? Could be. Are you? Could be. However neither side of this issue can be so easily dismissive of the legitimacy of the other: it's a subjective interpretation.


Submitted by Sailon on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 8:27pm.

If the Mayor (an elected official) can't delegate what duties he wants the City Manager to perform, or not to perform, at least temporarily, then the code doesn't mean much, does it. I remember once several years ago asking the police department who they worked for--that is: who did the Chief work for here in PTC. They answered, but gave me no facts, just asked me to read the law and find out. I really think they believe they work for no one, just as does the County Sheriff. We have enough of that in state employees being difficult to fire or correct even if documented (which they also won't allow) without having the "law" thinking that way. Immediate action must be taken in such cases and then adjudicated per legal advice as soon as is practicable. A "set-up" as a form of revenge however can not be forgiven and has nothing to do with the Town Manager's problem.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Thu, 06/08/2006 - 8:46am.

You really don't want to invest delegation of full Council authority
in the Mayor alone.

Too much power in one person.
-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Fri, 06/09/2006 - 5:29pm.

Amazing how well you all want to read the law now, but when the U.S. Constitution states that only Congress can declare war, you conveniently forget.

This "war" is illegal. The president should be impeached, imprisoned, and then sent to the Netherlands for war crimes.

But, hey, let's only apply the laws we find convenient.

HYPOCRITS!


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Fri, 06/09/2006 - 5:44pm.

We are talking about the powers of the Mayor and Council as regards this issue, and this issue alone, in this topic.

If you want to talk about the legality of such as Iraq, Nam or law enforcment in general, then start another topic.

You don't have a clue how I view Iraq, legally or otherwise. And I am not explaining it to you in response to an off-topic post.

But here, I did express the legal reality of the subject. And the danger or allowing the Mayor to exceed his authority.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


ManofGreatLogic's picture
Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Fri, 06/09/2006 - 11:00pm.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Wrong topic. Sorry.

But, hey, it's still slighly related. Executive office taking over every department?

Where have I seen that before?


PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Sat, 06/10/2006 - 9:36am.

Still off-topic, needing its own.

But, I will comment the biggest violation of the principle of what you are talking about is the Courts ceasing to interpret and enforce the law and acting as the legislative branch by creating laws.

Please start another topic if you want tot discuss that very legit issues.

Many other such claims are bogus. Political hype.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


mudcat's picture
Submitted by mudcat on Wed, 06/07/2006 - 6:58pm.

It hurt my little bitty cat paws to type those words, but you are in fact correct.

So, now we need to hear from you - exactly what would you do? If you were mayor? If you were city manager?

Easy to critique - now answer. What would you do?

I can answer very easily, since I have been there:

1. If I were city manager, I would resign immediately for not setting the example expected of department heads. After all, the public works guy is where, now?
2. If I were mayor, I'd do exactly what the mayor did and quietly talk to the city manager about stepping down.
3. Although not asked, I would then ask the new city manager to create policy for the cops working overtime at the Fred about what to do about open containers - then apply that policy to everyone; yes I said everyone. Or if that's uncomfortable - no one. Your choice.
4. I guess I'd fire DuPree, just because I don't like him, but that's optional.

So, what would you do Cal???????

meow


Submitted by AverageJoe on Sun, 06/11/2006 - 4:10pm.

Of course Bernie should resign. He got caught -- he got drunk at a public event, then had the unbelievably poor judgment to have alcohol in a prohibited area and drive under the influence. As city manager, the police report to him (or they did) and this creates an impossible conflict of interest. DO the honorable thing Bernie -- resign.

And yes, if I were the mayor, I would suspend or fire Bernie immediately. Why should Bernie get special treatment? He shouldn't! Bernie should hold himself to a higher standard. How can he be in charge of law enforcement and have any credibility if he can't even follow the law?

And finally, I would commend the PTC policemen involved in the arrest for having the courage to do what is right, arrest a drunk driver regardless of who he was, rather than taking the easy way out and letting him go. Bernie should not and cannot be treated differently than any other drunk driver.

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Sun, 06/11/2006 - 6:07pm.

The penalty for this should not be the loss of a job.

nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 7:01am.

I don't think in and of itself the DUI should be the sole criteria for whether Bernie gets the boot or not. Other factors like his attempt to "pull rank" and have Murray called at home I think will weigh into whatever decision is ultimately made, as well as any other factor that that we the public don't know about.

He used terrible judgement in having an OBVIOUS open container in front of the cops as well as the original decision to drive. I don't know if that alone though is grounds to simply fire him. He is going to face a Judge and be punished(or not) at trial...it's not like he gets a free pass if he gets to keep his job. Had this been during "working hours," sure, fire him, but it wasn't.

Personally, I think if I were him I'd resign and get out of town. 35,000 residents seem like 35 when something like this happens. Maybe Mayor and Council will offer him some "incentives" to pursue other opportunities elsewhere.

NUK


Submitted by dopplerobserver on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 7:33am.

You say, "I couldn't disagree more." Actually, this is not a case for opinions. If guilty, the real question is should we hold our leaders up to our youth, especially, as someone to listen to and respect, or is it just another Wall Street job where we expect many to be outrageous and we watch out for them? After all, it is just a job, and a service job at that, and it seems to me to be the very ones who should find it necessary to behave themself while in office. We have for much too long ignored our public servants' behaviour that we elect just because they are of one party or the other---not whether or not they flaunt their power while in the spot light. It is just a price one should pay for serving there. Have some pride and forget the partying, in public anyway. You don't make any friends that way or influence any intelligent person. Many of us did this kind of thing as teenagers but quit at an appropriate time.

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 8:40am.

This is truly the place for people's opinions.

I just don't think what was done warrants much of anything myself. Park the cart, call a cab or friend to take him home at most. .104 is very litle booze in the system.

I still think there is more to the story than we are seeing.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 8:50am.

So much has been said on this issue I will just make a comment here.

Legally intoxicated is .8 to .1. Legal and medicial authorities agree on this.

Impairment of abilities begins at about .05 per the medical field I have read. Begins means measurable loss, ieven if trivial.

So, .104 is not trivial.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by Fayetteresident on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 3:27pm.

When you typed "Legally intoxicated is .8 to .1. Legal and medicial authorities agree on this", I think you meant .08 to .1 .....?

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 7:14pm.

Thanks for catching that one. You are most assuredly correct!

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 1:33pm.

I will say that before MADD got involved, the legal limit was .10 in most states. It hits different folks different ways. Some can be falling down drunk at .05 and others appear sober as a Judge at .10 .

It still sounds to me like he was asking for trouble, riding on the cart with an obvious glass/cup of wine.

PTC Guy's picture
Submitted by PTC Guy on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 7:18pm.

Agree.

But appearances are deceiving. A habitual drunk can appear sober while being drunk as a skunk, to use an old phrase.

And others can appear fine while their minds are a murky mess.

Like it or not, I think the rigid levels are the only way to go. People are just stupid to know better and go for it anyway.

Yep. The glass of wine, slurring and so on just were beggging problems.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.


nuk's picture
Submitted by nuk on Tue, 06/13/2006 - 7:44am.

In GA, that's .08, though the 5-0 have the discretion to charge you with anything above .00 if they feel you don't need to be driving, there has to be SOME standard that applies to all, whether that's long-time alkies, the Weekend Warriors, or the New Year's Eve champagne-sipper. Otherwise, chaos and confusion.

Before anyone says that ".10 isn't that much," you had better know ALL the facts. Alcohol has some major interactions with a lot of prescription meds. An alcoholic will not be even the tiniest bit fazed by a .10....they are walking around with that+ in their system at all times. Conversely, .10 will be the person who drinks once a year into a condition that you don't want to deal with on the road or golf-cart path. So, the standard was set at .08 and the police given the power to make a judgement call on lesser levels if they determine the driver is impaired. I agree!


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.